Iran warns of ‘consequences' of silence and inaction over US strikes on nuclear sites
Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi on Monday said that silence and inaction over the US strikes on the country's three nuclear sites 'will have widespread consequences'. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, during an event recently.(REUTERS)
In a conversation with his French counterpart, Jean-Noël Barrot, Araghchi condemned the US strikes on the Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz nuclear facilities, calling the military action a violation of all international laws and regulations, including the United Nations Charter.
According to a statement issued on his Telegram channel, Abbas Araghchi stated that the 'silence and inaction' of countries in the face of the aggression will have widespread consequences and outcomes for all countries.
The Telegram release added that Barrot expressed regret over the US strikes and denied any involvement in their planning and execution. The French foreign minister expressed his concern about the escalation of tensions in the region after the strikes and called for the continuation of talks between Iran and Europe. Iran considering bill to suspend cooperation with IAEA
According to state media, a parliamentary bill to suspend Iran's cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is under consideration.
The reports were confirmed by Ruhollah Motefakerzadeh, a member of parliament's praesidium.
Iranian media also reported Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf stating that the proposed bill would suspend the country's cooperation with the IAEA until Tehran got objective guarantees of professional behaviour from the agency.
"We in the parliament are seeking to pass a bill that would suspend Iran's cooperation with the IAEA until we have objective guarantees of the professional behaviour of this international organisation," Qalibaf said about the bill.
The speaker added that Tehran was not looking to develop any sort of nuclear weapons.
"The world clearly saw that the Atomic Energy Agency has not fulfilled any of its obligations and has become a political tool," he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
America bombs Iran: What does the US Constitution say about war
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
United News of India
12 minutes ago
- United News of India
Iran plans temporary suspension of cooperation with IAEA due to its 'political stance'
Tehran, June 23 (UNI) The Iranian parliament plans to pass a bill to temporarily suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) due to its "politicised stance", said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Speaker of the Majlis (the unicameral parliament) of the Islamic Republic, reports Sputnik. 'We plan to adopt a bill in parliament that would suspend Iran's cooperation with the IAEA until we receive objective guarantees of professional conduct from this international organisation,' he said during a speech to lawmakers. 'The world has clearly seen that the IAEA has not fulfilled a single one of its obligations and has turned into a political tool.' A parliamentary bill to suspend Iran's cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog is under consideration, said Parliament presidium member Ruhollah Motefakerzadeh on June 23, according to state news agency Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), reports Strait Times. UNI ANV RN
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
With death clock gone, Khamenei's prophecy lies shattered
Israel conducted on Monday a high-profile airstrike on Tehran, targeting not only military and intelligence assets but also one of the most potent ideological symbols of the Islamic Republic -- the digital countdown clock in Palestine Square. Installed in 2017, the clock was based on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's ominous 2015 prophecy that Israel 'will not exist in 25 years.' Its destruction carries enormous symbolic weight, not only erasing a defiant message embedded in Tehran's skyline but also underlining Israel's growing assertiveness amid escalating confrontation. The origin and ideology behind the doomsday clock The digital clock, unveiled during Quds Day in June 2017, was more than a timekeeping device. It was propaganda incarnate, counting down the days to Israel's predicted demise in 2040. Displaying its message in Persian, Arabic and English, the clock tower loomed over Palestine Square, a location already soaked in political symbolism. Its placement and message were calculated to consolidate Iran 's self-image as the epicenter of the anti-Israel activities. For Iran's hardliners, the clock functioned as a perpetual reminder of their ideological mission -- the eventual eradication of Israel. It was also designed to project ideological resolve to domestic and foreign audiences alike. To supporters, it was a declaration of strategic patience and religious destiny. To Israel, it was a provocation, an unwavering threat that one day Iran's ambitions would be realized. Read More | Israel is not yet willing to touch Iran's most sensitive nerve In July 2021, widespread blackouts across Iran briefly halted the countdown. Though the disruption was due to electricity shortages caused by drought, heatwaves, and crumbling infrastructure, the symbolic impact was immediate. Iranian critics mocked the state's inability to keep its ideological machinery running, while international observers noted the irony that a regime proclaiming the fall of Israel couldn't keep a propaganda clock running. This moment offered a rare window into Iran's fragility. Even as the regime pushed grand ideological visions, it struggled with basic services, facing economic strain from sanctions and internal mismanagement. The clock's failure, however brief, diminished its aura of invincibility and suggested a gap between Tehran's ambitions and its capabilities. Live Events Read More | Fordow underground enrichment site attacked again, says Iranian media, a day after US strikes An ominous symbol is gone but the threat remains Today's Israeli airstrike marks a critical turning point, not just in military escalation, but in the symbolic war between the two nations. Alongside hits on the notorious Evin Prison and IRGC headquarters, Israel deliberately targeted the countdown clock in Palestine Square. This act was not accidental. It was a surgical erasure of a regime's ideological fixture, timed precisely to deliver maximum symbolic impact. The destruction of the clock represented a reversal of narratives. For years, Iran had used the clock as a visual countdown toward Israel's destruction. By physically erasing it, Israel flipped the script, demonstrating that it no longer accepted Iran's psychological warfare and that it possessed both the will and the precision to eliminate even the most guarded symbols of ideological aggression. The clock's destruction coincides with a series of crippling blows to Iran's nuclear ambitions and strategic infrastructure. American B-2 bombers have destroyed Iran's key nuclear site, Fordow, using bunker-buster bombs, which amounts to the de-nuclearisation of Iran. The development marks a significant rollback of Iranian power. For the first time in years, Israel appears to be dictating the tempo of conflict, not reacting to Iran's moves, but preemptively shaping the battlefield. The destruction of ideological symbols like the countdown clock underlines this momentum. However, it would be premature to declare Israel free of existential threat. Iran still retains a vast missile arsenal and asymmetric tools such as drones, cyber capabilities and maritime threats in the Strait of Hormuz. Even a weakened Iran can inflict significant damage through its regional proxies or unconventional attacks. Ideologically, while the clock is gone, the doctrine behind it remains embedded in the regime's DNA. Perhaps the most important shift lies in the realm of psychological warfare. The countdown clock's presence gave Iran a persistent advantage in setting the ideological narrative. Its disappearance, bombed into oblivion by an Israeli strike, reverses that advantage. It suggests that Tehran's grand timelines and theological certainties are no longer sacred or untouchable. Symbolically, this act represents Israel's defiance not just of physical threats, but of the very idea that its destruction is inevitable. It delivers a message to the Iranian regime and its allies that history will not unfold on their terms. By destroying the clock, Israel has shattered Khamenei's prophecy, not only for the people of Tehran, but for a global audience witnessing the symbolic end of the 2040 vision. Bombing of the countdown clock is the culmination of a sustained campaign by Israel and the US to neutralize both the physical and ideological engines of Iran's aggression. While military threats remain and Iran's ambitions are far from extinguished, the destruction of the clock marks a powerful shift in psychological momentum.
